Wingnutties out of control!

[O Really]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I don't care what supernatural beliefs anybody has as long as they don't try to govern with them. As far as I'm concerned, the Christian, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Wiccan, and the Mormon are all the same to me. Practically every religion has its own document that defines its beliefs, principles, maybe some history. Practically every religion has historical leaders, founders, and/or human-based deities, prophets and antichrists. The problem comes up in the context in which the base or source document is viewed. There are only a very few choices. (1) everything written is true and literal and is directly God's word through the authors; (2) the writings are not necessarily true in detail, but are representative of God's word; (3) the writings are representative of the world and culture in which they were written, but the principles can be applied to current life. One can view the base document in any of these ways, but cannot mix and match the choices.

[billy.pilgrim]

"The very ones you pick and choose your abominations from. The very same ones"

C'mon billy, that statement makes no sense whatsoever.

You are the one who believes this crap fictionalized 3,000 years ago about something that supposedly happened 3,000 years earlier.

Or, are you saying that you made up your homophobia all on your own

[Vrede too]

It was crystal clear to me, billy.pilgrim.

[Mr.B]

"I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I don't care what supernatural beliefs anybody has as long as they don't try to govern with them. As far as I'm concerned, the Christian, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Wiccan, and the Mormon are all the same to me. Practically every religion has its own document that defines its beliefs, principles, maybe some history. Practically every religion has historical leaders, founders, and/or human-based deities, prophets and antichrists. The problem comes up in the context in which the base or source document is viewed. There are only a very few choices. (1) everything written is true and literal and is directly God's word through the authors; (2) the writings are not necessarily true in detail, but are representative of God's word; (3) the writings are representative of the world and culture in which they were written, but the principles can be applied to current life. One can view the base document in any of these ways, but cannot mix and match the choices."

Well said, O Really.

To begin with, One should decide whether or not he/she believes in a Divine Creator and whether or not the Holy Bible is indeed the Word of God or that man was inspired by God to write it, and whether or not he/she believes in it. Granted, the Holy Bible is not the oldest of religious books to be written, but the Holy Bible has survived most all others; therefore it is used as a basis for today's various denominations and religions; with many and differing watered-down versions. I would venture to guess that because many religious writings predate the Holy Bible by thousands of years, that would be the basis of the notion by religious zealots that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God....." It doesn't say, "Last week, (yesterday, day-before-yesterday) God..."

Regardless, practically all faiths have God as the Supreme Being with various other personalities as the Son of God, God's Messenger, or the People's Apostle.

God, The Creator did not set up religions, varying faiths, or denominations ... therein lies man's confusion as to what to believe or whether to even believe at all. In all of the religious writings, believers are urged to "go out and bring them in"; hence the notion that the varying religions are attempting to control other's lives by conversion to their beliefs.

[Mr.B]

"The very ones you pick and choose your abominations from. The very same ones"

"C'mon billy, that statement makes no sense whatsoever."

"You are the one who believes this crap fictionalized 3,000 years ago about something that supposedly happened 3,000 years earlier."
So what if I do believe? Why should that matter to you what I or anyone else believes?
I for one, do not ridicule what you don't believe.

"Or, are you saying that you made up your homophobia all on your own?"
I'm not "homophobic". "Gays" are human too; I just don't believe that same-sex partnerships, marriage, or intimacy is a natural trait, due to the very make-up of the male and female bodies. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

"You are the one who believes this crap fictionalized 3,000 years ago about something that supposedly happened 3,000 years earlier."

"It was crystal clear to me, billy.pilgrim."
Right on...

[rstrong]

Regardless, practically all faiths have God as the Supreme Being with various other personalities as the Son of God, God's Messenger, or the People's Apostle.

One nitpick: That could be described as a modern fad, limited to Western culture.

Polytheists - pre-Christian Romans, Greeks and Egyptians with entire pantheons of gods - gave us the very foundations of society, culture, science, philosophy, literature and drama.

That polytheism still shows up in modern Christianity. Things like Santa Claus, the Christianized version of Woden (the Germanic version of Odin.) The solstice date of Christmas, Santa, Yule logs, Christmas trees, mistletoe, stockings by the fireplace, etc. Easter's pagan fertility rite symbols (eggs, bunnies), Halloween symbols and more. 17th century American and British Puritans had laws forbidding the celebration of Christmas because of its many pagan elements.

Ancient Christianity too. The Bible has numerous reference to (via early Judaism) it's polytheistic roots. (El, Asherah, etc.)

[bannination]

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God....." It doesn't say, "Last week, (yesterday, day-before-yesterday) God..."

I've got a nit here too..... when Christians calculate the age of the earth they add up the full genealogies provided in the bible. If you believe the bible is infallible the only conclusion you can reach is that the age of the earth is only a few thousand years old.

To do otherwise is to obviously invite the notion that the bible is inaccurate (the genealogy is inaccurate). That's why they hold that believe so strongly.

[rstrong]

To do otherwise is to obviously invite the notion that the bible is inaccurate (the genealogy is inaccurate). That's why they hold that believe so strongly.

Not all Christians believe that.

Some Baptists believe that every word is true. Mr.B cherry-picks a few lines according to his personal phobias and bigotries and rejects the rest. Most denominations are somewhere in between.

[O Really]

It's unimaginable how anyone could believe the detail accuracy of any account from hundreds (or more) years ago. There are clear discrepancies in accounts of things that happened last week, and some were recorded on video. But guess what - different people see different things on the same video. Anybody ever played the old kid's game, "gossip"? Somebody tells a story to someone else, who passes it along down through several players and at the end the player tells the story as s/he heard it. It's never right, and is sometimes not even recognizable from the original. People's perceptions of the same event differ - even after a day or less. People hear different words, or apply different meanings. Mistakes matter. "time to eat Suzy" isn't the same as "time to eat, Suzy." Back when the Christian Bible and the Quran were written most people could not read or write. Let's say the documents were dictated directly from God, there's a good chance the writer missed something or made an error. Let's take the direct words of God and translate them into some obscure dead language, and then translate that into a series of other languages - each translation subject to the understanding, interpretation, and likely beliefs of the translators. And then let's try to find an argument that every line of the document is true, accurate, and the word of God. Or not.

[Mr.B]

And then let's try ...

[Mr.B]

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God....." It doesn't say, "Last week, (yesterday, day-before-yesterday) God..."

I've got a nit here too..... when Christians calculate the age of the earth they add up the full genealogies provided in the bible. If you believe the bible is infallible the only conclusion you can reach is that the age of the earth is only a few thousand years old.

To do otherwise is to obviously invite the notion that the bible is inaccurate (the genealogy is inaccurate). That's why they hold that believe so strongly.

[rstrong]

It's unimaginable how...

Sure. There's also all the early Bible manuscripts that show how it's evolved. You can actually see the edits and overwrites in some early New Testament books as they were revised. Some stories, like Christ's resurrection, don't show up until three or four centuries AD. Many early Christian books and beliefs were later rejected and suppressed.

The Old Testament has a few differences from the Hebrew Bible because as Christianity spread into the Greek-speaking world, it adopted a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from Alexander the Great's time three centuries earlier. But in the mean time the Hebrew Bible had evolved too, with books added and removed.

The Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant branches have chosen differently on how to handle the differences. All three branches made (different) decisions on what books of the Bible are canon, in the 1500s and 1600s.

[Vrede too]

Bible translations into English

... More than 450 translations into English have been written.

The New Revised Standard Version is the version most commonly preferred by biblical scholars. In the United States, 55% of survey respondents who read the Bible reported using the King James Version in 2014, followed by 19% for the New International Version, with other versions used by fewer than 10%.

Pretty sloppy of god to allow so many versions of "truth".

In fact, at one time English versions were considered to be heresy and doing the translating could get one "executed by strangulation, after which his body was burnt at the stake."

William Tyndale

If the Bible ever was "truth", how can what was once heresy become the standard? And, if that is possible and routine, what does it tell us about the likelihood of Christian homophobia following the same path that Christian misogyny and racism have in the past few decades?

[rstrong]

I just find it ironic how so many hatemongers thump the King James Bible to support their opposition to same-sex marriage, while the very Church that created it supports same-sex marriage.

[billy.pilgrim]

"The very ones you pick and choose your abominations from. The very same ones"

"C'mon billy, that statement makes no sense whatsoever."

"You are the one who believes this crap fictionalized 3,000 years ago about something that supposedly happened 3,000 years earlier."
So what if I do believe? Why should that matter to you what I or anyone else believes?
I for one, do not ridicule what you don't believe.

"Or, are you saying that you made up your homophobia all on your own?"
I'm not "homophobic". "Gays" are human too; I just don't believe that same-sex partnerships, marriage, or intimacy is a natural trait, due to the very make-up of the male and female bodies. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

"You are the one who believes this crap fictionalized 3,000 years ago about something that supposedly happened 3,000 years earlier."

"It was crystal clear to me, billy.pilgrim."
Right on...

Your notion of religion transfered to your politics attempts to discriminate against people who hold different beliefs

[billy.pilgrim]

It's unimaginable how anyone could believe the detail accuracy of any account from hundreds (or more) years ago. There are clear discrepancies in accounts of things that happened last week, and some were recorded on video. But guess what - different people see different things on the same video. Anybody ever played the old kid's game, "gossip"? Somebody tells a story to someone else, who passes it along down through several players and at the end the player tells the story as s/he heard it. It's never right, and is sometimes not even recognizable from the original. People's perceptions of the same event differ - even after a day or less. People hear different words, or apply different meanings. Mistakes matter. "time to eat Suzy" isn't the same as "time to eat, Suzy." Back when the Christian Bible and the Quran were written most people could not read or write. Let's say the documents were dictated directly from God, there's a good chance the writer missed something or made an error. Let's take the direct words of God and translate them into some obscure dead language, and then translate that into a series of other languages - each translation subject to the understanding, interpretation, and likely beliefs of the translators. And then let's try to find an argument that every line of the document is true, accurate, and the word of God. Or not.

But we now use taxpayer funds to teach that crap about the 6,000 year old earth

[Vrede too]

I just find it ironic how so many hatemongers thump the King James Bible to support their opposition to same-sex marriage, while the very Church that created it supports same-sex marriage.

Not quite yet.

The King James Version (KJV), also known as Authorized [sic] Version (AV) or simply King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.

Church of England: Same-sex unions and LGBT clergy

The Church of England has been discussing same-sex marriages and LGBT clergy. The official position, although not allowing same-sex marriage, is that "Same-sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity." Within guidelines, "the law prevents ministers of the Church of England from carrying out same-sex marriages. And although there are no authorised services for blessing a same-sex civil marriage, your local church can still support you with prayer." As such, many Anglican churches, with clergy open to it, "already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis." ...

Getting close, though.

However, in the US (and Canada?):

Episcopal Church (United States)

The Episcopal Church (TEC) is the United States-based member church of the worldwide Anglican Communion (Church of England)....

Marriage of same-sex couples

At its 2015 triennial General Convention adopted “canonical and liturgical changes to provide marriage equality for Episcopalians.” The canonical change eliminated “language defining marriage as between a man and a woman.” The “two new marriage rites” contain language that allows “them to be used by same-sex or opposite-sex couples.” The blessing of same-sex relationships is not uniform throughout the Episcopal Church. Bishops determine whether churches and priests within their dioceses are permitted to use the liturgy. Bishops who do not permit the use of the liturgy within their diocese must connect same-sex couples to a diocese where the liturgy is allowed. Still, no Episcopal priest can be required to perform a blessing ceremony, even in dioceses where blessings are permitted. The Episcopal Church also opposes any state or federal constitutional amendments designed to prohibit the marriages or civil unions of same-sex couples.

[rstrong]

Ok.

The Church of England is also the mother church of the Anglican churches. Many of those perform same-sex marriages and support gay and lesbian clergy. And not "on an unofficial basis."

[billy.pilgrim]

I just find it ironic how so many hatemongers thump the King James Bible to support their opposition to same-sex marriage, while the very Church that created it supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't it really Queen James

[Vrede too]

Isn't it really Queen James

Nttawwt.

Personal relationships of James VI and I

The personal relationships of James VI and I included relationships with his male courtiers and his marriage to Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered children....

Maybe KJV stands for King James Variable.